A virtual from 2008?

[+Roman!]

I'd call b.ll on anyone that says they read every word on every cache page before going to GZ.

 

You'd be right. But if I'm making a special trip just to find a particular cache, I am going to be reading the listing and logs and probably checking Google maps before leaving the house.

 

But, if I am just looking for another cache while out looking for other caches in the area, I'm probably not going to read the cache page. That is unless I'm 20 or 30 minutes into the search. Then I'm pulling the listing up on my phone to see if I missed something. Either way, if I'm searching for another cache while out looking for other caches, I've not really wasted that much gas on 1 improperly labeled cache, am I?

 

You were just ticked because you couldn't find the cache. That is a respectable reason all on its own to be upset. But the gas and time argument are more on you than anyone else.

 

+1, and I see that indeed he was in the area for other reasons and grabbing other caches, so I really understand all the outrage over lost gas.

 

There's no outrage, I was surprised this cache lasted 6 years as a virtual. I was also surprised at the list of people still claiming it as a find.

[+Roman!]

Funny enough here is a log one of the finders of that "virtual" posted on their own cache today:

 

Temporarily Disable Listing 09/25/2014

If you cannot get this cache out, then you cannot sign the log and claim the find. Hopefully the next person to visit can fix it.

View Log

[+Dame Deco]

 

 

As for your multi, you didn't sign the log, you didn't earn the smiley.

 

That's my opinion anyways, I'm sure you found a way to justify counting it as a find to yourself just like those 200 people did on this cache.

 

I earned the smileys--I read the cache pages before I went, I knew what the COs required, I fulfilled those requirements, so yeah, I logged them as finds.

[+Roman!]

 

 

As for your multi, you didn't sign the log, you didn't earn the smiley.

 

That's my opinion anyways, I'm sure you found a way to justify counting it as a find to yourself just like those 200 people did on this cache.

 

I earned the smileys--I read the cache pages before I went, I knew what the COs required, I fulfilled those requirements, so yeah, I logged them as finds.

 

I doesn't matter what the CO wants, to log a find on a multi on this website you are required to sign the log.

 

You did not meet those requirements.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Roman!

[+Dame Deco]

 

 

As for your multi, you didn't sign the log, you didn't earn the smiley.

 

That's my opinion anyways, I'm sure you found a way to justify counting it as a find to yourself just like those 200 people did on this cache.

 

I earned the smileys--I read the cache pages before I went, I knew what the COs required, I fulfilled those requirements, so yeah, I logged them as finds.

 

I doesn't matter what the CO wants, to log a find on a multi on this website you are required to sign the log.

 

You did not meet those requirements.

 

I just assume that if a cache has been that way for years and is still listed on the site, the Powers That Be consider it a legal cache.

[+Roman!]

 

 

As for your multi, you didn't sign the log, you didn't earn the smiley.

 

That's my opinion anyways, I'm sure you found a way to justify counting it as a find to yourself just like those 200 people did on this cache.

 

I earned the smileys--I read the cache pages before I went, I knew what the COs required, I fulfilled those requirements, so yeah, I logged them as finds.

 

I doesn't matter what the CO wants, to log a find on a multi on this website you are required to sign the log.

 

You did not meet those requirements.

 

I just assume that if a cache has been that way for years and is still listed on the site, the Powers That Be consider it a legal cache.

 

No, they just haven't been made aware of it yet.

 

See post 2:

 

 

This happens more than you might think, especially from old-timers who remember the days when you could freely change the cache type and the coordinates. Unless a reviewer stumbles across the mis-categorized listing by accident -- like as a player -- we rely on the community to report these as Roman! has done.

 

Once a cache like this comes to my attention, I have a standard form letter:

 

Hello,

 

I noticed that this physical cache has gone missing, and that the listing has been "converted to a virtual" by the owner. This is a traditional cache, and requires a replacement container ASAP. I have temporarily disabled the cache so that people will know not to search for something that isn't there. When the owner completes the necessary maintenance, please re-enable the cache. I have bookmarked this cache and will check back in a couple of weeks to make sure that this has been done.

 

Thanks,

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

[+Dame Deco]

I hadn't been made aware of it, either. I made the finds in good faith, and so I won't go back and delete them.

[4wheelin_fool]

While we are discussing a traditional illegally converted to a virtual, how about a virtual without any requirements at all? Just log it. I suppose the point just may be to be honest.

 

And yeah, I'm pretty sure that TPTB are aware of it. Not sure if they will honestly admit it..

Edited September 26, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Roman!]

I hadn't been made aware of it, either. I made the finds in good faith, and so I won't go back and delete them.

 

And of all the 200+ people claiming a find on the cache I brought up I bet a lot would same the same thing.I'd bet most didn't know better but those that did should have reported the cache or not claimed the smiley.

[+Roman!]

While we are discussing a traditional illegally converted to a virtual, how about a virtual without any requirements at all? Just log it. I suppose the point just may be to be honest.

 

You're still required to visit GZ no? I think it's OK, now if you weren't then it would be a locationless and need to be archived.

 

Actually I think that cache is rather smart.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Roman!

[+GeoBain]

I doesn't matter what the CO wants, to log a find on a multi on this website you are required to sign the log.

 

You did not meet those requirements.

 

You mind showing where that requirement is mentioned?

 

The closest I can come up with is the oft misinterpreted guideline that states:

 

"Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

 

It does not state that physical caches can be logged online as "Found" ONLY once the physical log has been signed. That little sentence was added back around 2008 when ALRs were abolished. It is there to protect people's found logs if they have signed the logbook. A cache owner can choose to allow found logs for lots of reasons even if no corresponding signature is in the logbook.

 

Don't believe me, just ask Toz. I don't feel like looking up the lackey's post that clarified that position. But it was clarified that the change was only to element ALRs and not to redefine what constitutes a found log.

[+Roman!]

I doesn't matter what the CO wants, to log a find on a multi on this website you are required to sign the log.

 

You did not meet those requirements.

 

You mind showing where that requirement is mentioned?

 

The closest I can come up with is the oft misinterpreted guideline that states:

 

"Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

 

It does not state that physical caches can be logged online as "Found" ONLY once the physical log has been signed. That little sentence was added back around 2008 when ALRs were abolished. It is there to protect people's found logs if they have signed the logbook. A cache owner can choose to allow found logs for lots of reasons even if no corresponding signature is in the logbook.

 

Don't believe me, just ask Toz. I don't feel like looking up the lackey's post that clarified that position. But it was clarified that the change was only to element ALRs and not to redefine what constitutes a found log.

 

You mean that lackey statement that went something like: just sign the log, how complicated can that be.

 

I refer you again to post 2 by keystone, why would he archive it if it wasn't changed?

 

As for "Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.", once or no once, it would take a book longer than war and peace to legally close up any loopholes.

 

It still means sign the log, log the cache.

 

Without it this just becomes a virtual online game.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Roman!

[+Roman!]

Even one one the people that claimed a smiley knows better.

 

After someone seeing her cache but not being able to retrieve it and sign the log she posted this log to her cache page:

 

Temporarily Disable Listing 09/25/2014

If you cannot get this cache out, then you cannot sign the log and claim the find. Hopefully the next person to visit can fix it.

View Log

Edited September 26, 2014 by Roman!

[4wheelin_fool]

While we are discussing a traditional illegally converted to a virtual, how about a virtual without any requirements at all? Just log it. I suppose the point just may be to be honest.

 

You're still required to visit GZ no? I think it's OK, now if you weren't then it would be a locationless and need to be archived.

 

Actually I think that cache is rather smart.

 

No. There are no requirements. You probably may be expected to visit GZ, but there are no photos to take, or e-mails to be sent about finding anything there. Forget online research, as there is none needed.

 

Abe wasn't even completely honest anyhow. Breaking his campaign promise is what was partly responsible for the civil war.

Lincoln promised to preserve slavery in the Southern states, and even endorsed an amendment to accomplish just that.

 

I got there, read the page, scratched my head and then logged it.

[+Roman!]

While we are discussing a traditional illegally converted to a virtual, how about a virtual without any requirements at all? Just log it. I suppose the point just may be to be honest.

 

You're still required to visit GZ no? I think it's OK, now if you weren't then it would be a locationless and need to be archived.

 

Actually I think that cache is rather smart.

 

No. There are no requirements. You probably may be expected to visit GZ, but there are no photos to take, or e-mails to be sent about finding anything there. Forget online research, as there is none needed.

 

Abe wasn't even completely honest anyhow. Breaking his campaign promise is what was partly responsible for the civil war.

Lincoln promised to preserve slavery in the Southern states, and even endorsed an amendment to accomplish just that.

 

I got there, read the page, scratched my head and then logged it.

 

Looking at the cache page I'd assume you need to visit GZ then send any info to the co which in this case is none. I guess it leaves itself a bit open for armchair logging for those inclined to do so.

 

As for Abe, most people only know what they can remember and most remember Abe as honest. Still think it's a witty cache.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Roman!

[+jellis]

Just yesterday I went looking for this cache, spent a good ten minutes searching before I read the description again and realized it's a virtual that's listed as a traditional. Reading through the early logs, it sounds like there was at some point a micro cache, but reading the description now it says "There is no log to sign, no paperwork to complete. Your only task is to enjoy this small town!"

That one looks like it evolved early enought to be a grandfathered Virtual. But new cachers placing them may think it's okay. Hard to say. Like the buried caches they see them and think it's okay.

[Keystone]

As for your multi, you didn't sign the log, you didn't earn the smiley.

 

That's my opinion anyways, I'm sure you found a way to justify counting it as a find to yourself just like those 200 people did on this cache.

 

I earned the smileys--I read the cache pages before I went, I knew what the COs required, I fulfilled those requirements, so yeah, I logged them as finds.

 

I doesn't matter what the CO wants, to log a find on a multi on this website you are required to sign the log.

 

You did not meet those requirements.

Not always so. Look at the hidden date of the multicache. There are plenty of what I call "MultiVirts" that predate the end of Virtual caches. If the cache was originally set up as a virtual with multiple stages and the owner chose "multicache," back in the 2000-2004 timeframe the reviewers didn't make a big deal out of that. To this day, they're considered grandfathered. Ditto that for a few virtuals that are really locationless caches.

 

It's different if a cache was set up as something other than a virtual AND was converted to a virtual at a later date when the container went missing.

[4wheelin_fool]

Just yesterday I went looking for this cache, spent a good ten minutes searching before I read the description again and realized it's a virtual that's listed as a traditional. Reading through the early logs, it sounds like there was at some point a micro cache, but reading the description now it says "There is no log to sign, no paperwork to complete. Your only task is to enjoy this small town!"

That one looks like it evolved early enought to be a grandfathered Virtual. But new cachers placing them may think it's okay. Hard to say. Like the buried caches they see them and think it's okay.

 

Grandfathered virtuals are listed as virtuals. It's clearly a traditional without any container or requirements.

[+Roman!]

As for your multi, you didn't sign the log, you didn't earn the smiley.

 

That's my opinion anyways, I'm sure you found a way to justify counting it as a find to yourself just like those 200 people did on this cache.

 

I earned the smileys--I read the cache pages before I went, I knew what the COs required, I fulfilled those requirements, so yeah, I logged them as finds.

 

I doesn't matter what the CO wants, to log a find on a multi on this website you are required to sign the log.

 

You did not meet those requirements.

Not always so. Look at the hidden date of the multicache. There are plenty of what I call "MultiVirts" that predate the end of Virtual caches. If the cache was originally set up as a virtual with multiple stages and the owner chose "multicache," back in the 2000-2004 timeframe the reviewers didn't make a big deal out of that. To this day, they're considered grandfathered. Ditto that for a few virtuals that are really locationless caches.

 

It's different if a cache was set up as something other than a virtual AND was converted to a virtual at a later date when the container went missing.

 

Since you're here is it or is it not required to sign a log (on caches with containers) to claim a smiley on GC.com?

 

 

NOTE: if your reply starts with something along the lines of "most of the time" or "not always" or something similar, knowing you are a lawyer I will refine my question because I know you know exactly what I'm asking

Edited September 26, 2014 by Roman!

[+jellis]

While we are discussing a traditional illegally converted to a virtual, how about a virtual without any requirements at all? Just log it. I suppose the point just may be to be honest.

 

You're still required to visit GZ no? I think it's OK, now if you weren't then it would be a locationless and need to be archived.

 

Actually I think that cache is rather smart.

 

No. There are no requirements. You probably may be expected to visit GZ, but there are no photos to take, or e-mails to be sent about finding anything there. Forget online research, as there is none needed.

 

Abe wasn't even completely honest anyhow. Breaking his campaign promise is what was partly responsible for the civil war.

Lincoln promised to preserve slavery in the Southern states, and even endorsed an amendment to accomplish just that.

 

I got there, read the page, scratched my head and then logged it.

When cachers start believing it's okay to log it without being found then what's the point of geocaching? Let's just sit at our computers and see who is the fastest and can log the most caches without ever being there. I was scoping out an area I was going to cache with some friends and noticed some virtuals. Two out of country cachers logged mostly just virtuals in so many states and in just a few days. Why? They never got to experience where ever the Virtuals were going to take them.

[+jellis]

Just yesterday I went looking for this cache, spent a good ten minutes searching before I read the description again and realized it's a virtual that's listed as a traditional. Reading through the early logs, it sounds like there was at some point a micro cache, but reading the description now it says "There is no log to sign, no paperwork to complete. Your only task is to enjoy this small town!"

That one looks like it evolved early enought to be a grandfathered Virtual. But new cachers placing them may think it's okay. Hard to say. Like the buried caches they see them and think it's okay.

 

Grandfathered virtuals are listed as virtuals. It's clearly a traditional without any container or requirements.

I've ran into many grandfathered trad/virtuals and were told this by reviewers when I questioned them.

 

edited: See Keystones post above

Edited September 26, 2014 by jellis

[+Dame Deco]

 

Not always so. Look at the hidden date of the multicache. There are plenty of what I call "MultiVirts" that predate the end of Virtual caches. If the cache was originally set up as a virtual with multiple stages and the owner chose "multicache," back in the 2000-2004 timeframe the reviewers didn't make a big deal out of that. To this day, they're considered grandfathered. Ditto that for a few virtuals that are really locationless caches.

 

It's different if a cache was set up as something other than a virtual AND was converted to a virtual at a later date when the container went missing.

 

Ah, thanks for that clarification--just checked, and all three of my MultiVirts were published in 2002! Good to know!

[+Roman!]

While we are discussing a traditional illegally converted to a virtual, how about a virtual without any requirements at all? Just log it. I suppose the point just may be to be honest.

 

You're still required to visit GZ no? I think it's OK, now if you weren't then it would be a locationless and need to be archived.

 

Actually I think that cache is rather smart.

 

No. There are no requirements. You probably may be expected to visit GZ, but there are no photos to take, or e-mails to be sent about finding anything there. Forget online research, as there is none needed.

 

Abe wasn't even completely honest anyhow. Breaking his campaign promise is what was partly responsible for the civil war.

Lincoln promised to preserve slavery in the Southern states, and even endorsed an amendment to accomplish just that.

 

I got there, read the page, scratched my head and then logged it.

When cachers start believing it's okay to log it without being found then what's the point of geocaching? Let's just sit at our computers and see who is the fastest and can log the most caches without ever being there. I was scoping out an area I was going to cache with some friends and noticed some virtuals. Two out of country cachers logged mostly just virtuals in so many states and in just a few days. Why? They never got to experience where ever the Virtuals were going to take them.

 

This is exactly my point and caches like the one I posted are opening the door.

 

Thanks to this thread I learnt there are exceptions as well.

[+uxorious]

I know virtuals are no longer allowed. But I'm not going to report something like that. That is not something that is going to give geocaching a black eye so I wouldn't fret over it.

 

If someone reported it earlier I wouldn't have wasted my time and gas searching for it, maybe it'll save someone else's time and gas.

 

I wish someone had reported it years ago, maybe there would have been a real cache for me to find.

 

So, you made a special trip just to find that one single cache without reading the listing? I would think you would be more to blame for your wasted gas and time than anyone else.

 

I check logs as most people do, as I've said earlier if the cache has dozens of finds with no DNFs I expect a reasonable chance at finding it, I do not expect the cache to be missing for years.

 

I'd call b.ll on anyone that says they read every word on every cache page before going to GZ.

 

In general I will agree with you. I would not log that cache and claim a smiley. (I might have,back when I started this game.)

 

However, I read the cache page for every cache I go after, without exception. Sometimes, if the CO writes a story to go with the cache page, I might skim or skip it. But I will read the cache description. If I miss something because I skipped the long story, it will be my fault.

 

I have no sympathy for those that don't read the cache page. While this cache did need to be archived, you would not have wasted anything looking for it, as the cache write up was quite clear.

[+GeoBain]

Here is the quote from the person who helped write that entry.

 

My concern with the change is not that Groundspeak feels the game would be better of if Additional Logging Requirements became Additional Logging Suggestions, but rather the wording of the instruction for logging a physical cache. It can be read as a change in Groundspeak policy to now favor the logger whose Found It log was deleted instead of the cache owner.

If TPTB are going to enforce their guidelines they need to have some way to ensure that Found It logs are only made when the physical has been signed as well as ensuring that when the physical log has been signed that logs can't be deleted.

Having participated in the drafting of the new guideline wording, please let me assure you that the first sentence of the section, to which you are referring in this (and a couple of your previous posts in this forum)

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

are not indicative of any change of policy towards cache logging by Groundspeak, whatsoever. They are simply there to clarify that, following the removal of ALRs, there is now no other requirement beyond signing the log to be able to say, online, "Yes, I found this cache".

 

That sentence contributes a degree of redundancy to the language of the new "Logging of All Physical Caches" section of the guidelines. The inclusion of this redundancy was a deliberate choice during the drafting stage of the new guideline paragraph.

 

When writing words that you hope will be clearly understood by one million people (yikes!), you have a choice: either state things very precisely and elegantly, or use lots of redundancy. The former method creates words that appeal to the aesthetic sense of those who can appreciate it (classy people, like you and me); the latter reduces the number of people who fail to get to the basic message, but may cause the lovers of elegance to read other motives into some of the thudding prose. On balance, given the choice between a few people reading too much into the redundant wording and reacting in the forums, versus tens of thousands of people not understanding the idea because they don't read every word in detail and e-mailing or calling for support as a result, I think that the former is probably the more economical choice.

 

Now, having established the case for redundancy, I'll reiterate : the wording of the new "Logging of All Physical Caches" section of the guidelines does not indicate any new Groundspeak policy towards physical logging, online logging, log deletion, or anything else, apart from the specific change to the publication of caches with ALRs. There really is nothing to see here. Whatever mechanisms there may be to "punish" (brrrr...) people who don't comply, are the same as the ones which were there last week in cases where the CO deleted a log because the finder's name had too many consonants in it.

[4wheelin_fool]

Just yesterday I went looking for this cache, spent a good ten minutes searching before I read the description again and realized it's a virtual that's listed as a traditional. Reading through the early logs, it sounds like there was at some point a micro cache, but reading the description now it says "There is no log to sign, no paperwork to complete. Your only task is to enjoy this small town!"

That one looks like it evolved early enought to be a grandfathered Virtual. But new cachers placing them may think it's okay. Hard to say. Like the buried caches they see them and think it's okay.

 

Grandfathered virtuals are listed as virtuals. It's clearly a traditional without any container or requirements.

I've ran into many grandfathered trad/virtuals and were told this by reviewers when I questioned them.

 

edited: See Keystones post above

 

Multis are different from traditionals, as they might be virtuals with several stages, so multi might fit. Traditionals were never grandfathered as virtuals.

[Keystone]

As for your multi, you didn't sign the log, you didn't earn the smiley.

 

That's my opinion anyways, I'm sure you found a way to justify counting it as a find to yourself just like those 200 people did on this cache.

 

I earned the smileys--I read the cache pages before I went, I knew what the COs required, I fulfilled those requirements, so yeah, I logged them as finds.

 

I doesn't matter what the CO wants, to log a find on a multi on this website you are required to sign the log.

 

You did not meet those requirements.

Not always so. Look at the hidden date of the multicache. There are plenty of what I call "MultiVirts" that predate the end of Virtual caches. If the cache was originally set up as a virtual with multiple stages and the owner chose "multicache," back in the 2000-2004 timeframe the reviewers didn't make a big deal out of that. To this day, they're considered grandfathered. Ditto that for a few virtuals that are really locationless caches.

 

It's different if a cache was set up as something other than a virtual AND was converted to a virtual at a later date when the container went missing.

 

Since you're here is it or is it not required to sign a log (on caches with containers) to claim a smiley on GC.com?

 

 

NOTE: if your reply starts with something along the lines of "most of the time" or "not always" or something similar, knowing you are a lawyer I will refine my question because I know you know exactly what I'm asking

I have zero interest in dancing on the head of the pin that's labeled "when is a find a find?"

 

But if I did take out a magnifying glass to look at the head of that pin, I would likely say "cool, Toz is hosting a rave."

[4wheelin_fool]

is it or is it not required to sign a log (on caches with containers) to claim a smiley on GC.com?

 

You should know the routine by now. The guidelines say you do, but Toz will pop in here and say that the CO might allow exceptions to not signing the log, and he's right. You do not have to sign the log if the CO allows it, but they cannot print that on the page. That would not be an occasional exception, but a permanent one.

Edited September 26, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+jellis]

Just yesterday I went looking for this cache, spent a good ten minutes searching before I read the description again and realized it's a virtual that's listed as a traditional. Reading through the early logs, it sounds like there was at some point a micro cache, but reading the description now it says "There is no log to sign, no paperwork to complete. Your only task is to enjoy this small town!"

That one looks like it evolved early enought to be a grandfathered Virtual. But new cachers placing them may think it's okay. Hard to say. Like the buried caches they see them and think it's okay.

 

Grandfathered virtuals are listed as virtuals. It's clearly a traditional without any container or requirements.

I've ran into many grandfathered trad/virtuals and were told this by reviewers when I questioned them.

 

edited: See Keystones post above

 

Multis are different from traditionals, as they might be virtuals with several stages, so multi might fit. Traditionals were never grandfathered as virtuals.

Multis are trads with stages. Still a physical cache. As I mentioned the reviewers told me they were grandfathered trads and what can you say?

[4wheelin_fool]

Multis are trads with stages. Still a physical cache.

 

Not always. As mentioned above, there were multi stage virtuals originally listed as multis.

 

As I mentioned the reviewers told me they were grandfathered trads and what can you say?

 

They really meant that they've been that way for so long, that its probably not worth doing anything about it. Its pretty clear that multis can be virts, but traditionals are never virts.

[+GeoBain]

is it or is it not required to sign a log (on caches with containers) to claim a smiley on GC.com?

 

You should know the routine by now. The guidelines say you do, but Toz will pop in here and say that the CO might allow exceptions to not signing the log, and he's right. You do not have to sign the log if the CO allows it, but they cannot print that on the page. That would not be an occasional exception, but a permanent one.

 

Put another way, generally speaking, one needs to sign the logbook in order to claim a find.

 

You are correct that you cannot make a permanent exception on the listing. Listings have been archived when that occurs as it opens the door for armchair logging.

[+jellis]

Multis are trads with stages. Still a physical cache.

 

Not always. As mentioned above, there were multi stage virtuals originally listed as multis.

 

As I mentioned the reviewers told me they were grandfathered trads and what can you say?

 

They really meant that they've been that way for so long, that its probably not worth doing anything about it. Its pretty clear that multis can be virts, but traditionals are never virts.

As you said eventually they became grandfathered trad/virtuals

Edited September 26, 2014 by jellis

[4wheelin_fool]

As you said eventually they became trad/virtuals

 

Any traditional with virtual requirements was not grandfathered but changed after publication. Other types existed in strange ways. Here is a 2 stage multi originally listed as a mystery, with size noted as virtual. I don't think there was a multicache icon back then which explains the mystery icon, but it does not explain the virtual size designation. Confusing? The last log in 2011 was from someone who found the first stage 8 years later and claimed a find on it since someone else did that.

Edited September 26, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Roman!]

Someone needs to have the balls to state that to log a find in this site you must sign the log.

 

Everything has rules, without them it's anarchy.

[+Roman!]

I am just going to say this: I was surprised running into this cache and that it existed for so long and I was surprised by the number of people thinking it is OK to log it as a find. I am also surprised by how many people, after seeing the extensive "Found It = Didn't Find It " thread are OK with this cache existing.

 

I was led to believe sign the log to claim a find now I wonder exactly what is geocaching?

[+GeoBain]

Someone needs to have the balls to state that to log a find in this site you must sign the log.

 

Everything has rules, without them it's anarchy.

 

This goes back to the argument about guidelines being guidelines. They are intentionally worded in order to allow some flexibility.

 

While generally you need to sign the logbook, there are times such as wet logs when an exception is warranted. Of course, even in the case of a wet logbook, a CO may delete an online found log. But he doesn't have to delete the online found log. Just as in the case of throwdowns, a CO has every right to delete found logs of those signing the bogus logbook. But the CO is allowed, even encouraged, to let those stand.

[+Roman!]

As for your multi, you didn't sign the log, you didn't earn the smiley.

 

That's my opinion anyways, I'm sure you found a way to justify counting it as a find to yourself just like those 200 people did on this cache.

 

I earned the smileys--I read the cache pages before I went, I knew what the COs required, I fulfilled those requirements, so yeah, I logged them as finds.

 

I doesn't matter what the CO wants, to log a find on a multi on this website you are required to sign the log.

 

You did not meet those requirements.

Not always so. Look at the hidden date of the multicache. There are plenty of what I call "MultiVirts" that predate the end of Virtual caches. If the cache was originally set up as a virtual with multiple stages and the owner chose "multicache," back in the 2000-2004 timeframe the reviewers didn't make a big deal out of that. To this day, they're considered grandfathered. Ditto that for a few virtuals that are really locationless caches.

 

It's different if a cache was set up as something other than a virtual AND was converted to a virtual at a later date when the container went missing.

 

Since you're here is it or is it not required to sign a log (on caches with containers) to claim a smiley on GC.com?

 

 

NOTE: if your reply starts with something along the lines of "most of the time" or "not always" or something similar, knowing you are a lawyer I will refine my question because I know you know exactly what I'm asking

I have zero interest in dancing on the head of the pin that's labeled "when is a find a find?"

 

But if I did take out a magnifying glass to look at the head of that pin, I would likely say "cool, Toz is hosting a rave."

 

Well, thanks for shattering my illusions, i will be breaking my record of 768 finds in one day shortly.

[+jellis]

Someone needs to have the balls to state that to log a find in this site you must sign the log.

 

Everything has rules, without them it's anarchy.

I don't always check my logsheets but I do especially when I suspect someone wasn't there and I will post a picture of the logsheet. I recently posted one and sent a message to a cacher who did not sign it. They never responded.

[+GeoBain]

I am just going to say this: I was surprised running into this cache and that it existed for so long and I was surprised by the number of people thinking it is OK to log it as a find. I am also surprised by how many people, after seeing the extensive "Found It = Didn't Find It " thread are OK with this cache existing.

 

I was led to believe sign the log to claim a find now I wonder exactly what is geocaching?

 

Generally speaking, it is finding a cache and signing a log and even trading if the cache permits.

 

But again, there are exceptions such as Earthcaches, virtuals, lab caches, etc.

 

There is also the occasional forgotten pen in which photo proof of the find is acceptable to most cache owners.

[+Roman!]

Someone needs to have the balls to state that to log a find in this site you must sign the log.

 

Everything has rules, without them it's anarchy.

 

This goes back to the argument about guidelines being guidelines. They are intentionally worded in order to allow some flexibility.

 

While generally you need to sign the logbook, there are times such as wet logs when an exception is warranted. Of course, even in the case of a wet logbook, a CO may delete an online found log. But he doesn't have to delete the online found log. Just as in the case of throwdowns, a CO has every right to delete found logs of those signing the bogus logbook. But the CO is allowed, even encouraged, to let those stand.

 

How hard is it to have a rule: no siggy, no smiley?

 

The definition of a signature is a mark that represents you be it an inked signature, a stamp, a thumb print of dirt or a runny ink blob due to a soaked log book or any other creative way a person may leave their mark.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Roman!

[+jellis]

Someone needs to have the balls to state that to log a find in this site you must sign the log.

 

Everything has rules, without them it's anarchy.

I don't always check my logsheets but I do especially when I suspect someone wasn't there and I will post a picture of the logsheet. I recently posted one and sent a message to a cacher who did not sign it. They never responded.

Forgot to add about a cacher who also didn't sign one of mine and when I deleted her log she asked me why. I let her know she didn't sign it. She responded she didn't know she had to and said that on her posting when see went back to sign it.

[+Roman!]

I am just going to say this: I was surprised running into this cache and that it existed for so long and I was surprised by the number of people thinking it is OK to log it as a find. I am also surprised by how many people, after seeing the extensive "Found It = Didn't Find It " thread are OK with this cache existing.

 

I was led to believe sign the log to claim a find now I wonder exactly what is geocaching?

 

Generally speaking, it is finding a cache and signing a log and even trading if the cache permits.

 

But again, there are exceptions such as Earthcaches, virtuals, lab caches, etc.

 

There is also the occasional forgotten pen in which photo proof of the find is acceptable to most cache owners.

 

I understand other cache types, that's not what this is about and as for the famous "I forgot my pen so I posted a pic" you could argue they left their mark in the log book via DNA and that can be considered a signature.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Roman!

[+GeoBain]

I am just going to say this: I was surprised running into this cache and that it existed for so long and I was surprised by the number of people thinking it is OK to log it as a find. I am also surprised by how many people, after seeing the extensive "Found It = Didn't Find It " thread are OK with this cache existing.

 

I was led to believe sign the log to claim a find now I wonder exactly what is geocaching?

 

Generally speaking, it is finding a cache and signing a log and even trading if the cache permits.

 

But again, there are exceptions such as Earthcaches, virtuals, lab caches, etc.

 

There is also the occasional forgotten pen in which photo proof of the find is acceptable to most cache owners.

 

I understand other cache types, that's not what this is about and as for the famous "I forgot my pen so I posted a pic" you could argue they left their mark in the log book via DNA and that can be considered a signature.

 

I agree, but I have seen others argue that a picture is not a signature and no sig, no find. Which, again, is the CO's prerogative. But most would allow that as acceptable proof.

Edited September 26, 2014 by GeoBain

[+Roman!]

I am just going to say this: I was surprised running into this cache and that it existed for so long and I was surprised by the number of people thinking it is OK to log it as a find. I am also surprised by how many people, after seeing the extensive "Found It = Didn't Find It " thread are OK with this cache existing.

 

I was led to believe sign the log to claim a find now I wonder exactly what is geocaching?

 

Generally speaking, it is finding a cache and signing a log and even trading if the cache permits.

 

But again, there are exceptions such as Earthcaches, virtuals, lab caches, etc.

 

There is also the occasional forgotten pen in which photo proof of the find is acceptable to most cache owners.

 

I understand other cache types, that's not what this is about and as for the famous "I forgot my pen so I posted a pic" you could argue they left their mark in the log book via DNA and that can be considered a signature.

 

I agree, but I have seen others argue that a picture is not a signature and no sig, no find. Which, again, is the CO's prerogative. But most would allow that as acceptable proof.

 

Here's the difference, touching the log you can argues you signed it, by a very loose definition you did, not finding the cache, especially one that doesn't exist, then there is no argument whether you signed the log.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Roman!

[+niraD]

How hard is it to have a rule: no siggy, no smiley?

Creating the rule isn't the hard part.

 

The definition of a signature is a mark that represents you be it an inked signature, a stamp, a thumb print of dirt or a runny ink blob due to a soaked log book or any other creative way a person may leave their mark.

How about a photograph of a cache container full of soggy paper pulp? Or an emailed description of the location and camouflage and container? Or...

[+Roman!]

How hard is it to have a rule: no siggy, no smiley?

Creating the rule isn't the hard part.

 

The definition of a signature is a mark that represents you be it an inked signature, a stamp, a thumb print of dirt or a runny ink blob due to a soaked log book or any other creative way a person may leave their mark.

How about a photograph of a cache container full of soggy paper pulp? Or an emailed description of the location and camouflage and container? Or...

 

Its actually not that complicated, any mark you leave on the log is a signature, no matter how wet and pulpy the log you can leave a mark, no mark, no smiley. Find the log and hold it and take a pic = find, you left DNA. Find what you thought was the hidey hole and took a picture = no smiley. Even if the line is blurry on what is and isn't a find, logging a cache that has been missing 6 years as found screams wrong.

 

What you are doing is pushing the envelope one inch at a a time and if no one stops you before anyone knows it you've covered a mile. At what point does actually finding a cache become irrelevant? We are getting one inch closer all the time.

 

Everything has rules to prevent this, shouldn't geocaching?

Edited September 26, 2014 by Roman!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

is it or is it not required to sign a log (on caches with containers) to claim a smiley on GC.com?

 

You should know the routine by now. The guidelines say you do, but Toz will pop in here and say that the CO might allow exceptions to not signing the log, and he's right. You do not have to sign the log if the CO allows it, but they cannot print that on the page. That would not be an occasional exception, but a permanent one.

 

I agree with Toz as well. That last sentence, though, is key to this discussion. A cache owner, can make an occasional exception. Whether you (the general you) think that you *must* sign the physical log before you log a found it online, or not, a cache owner might on occasion accept some other form of evidence that the the cache was "found". Just as an example, a container frozen in ice might accept a picture of the container rather than have someone attempt to dig it out of the ice and possibly damage the container. If the cache owner allows a online found it log, *nobody is harmed* if the "finder" wasn't able to put pen on paper. In this case, however, it's gone beyond that. The CO essentially turned a traditional cache into a virtual permanently.

 

 

[Mr.Yuck]

While we are discussing a traditional illegally converted to a virtual, how about a virtual without any requirements at all? Just log it. I suppose the point just may be to be honest.

 

And yeah, I'm pretty sure that TPTB are aware of it. Not sure if they will honestly admit it..

 

I just took my first trip to D.C. as a Geocacher this Spring. Yeah, I know, they don't let me out much. I was actually quite surprised when finally taking a close look at all the Virtuals that exist there, that a number of them were, for lack of a better term, pretty cheesy.

 

The one you link to with absolutely no logging requirements is not the first, I'll bet I've seen over a dozen over the years. Of course the whole "honest" thing is quite ironic in thst particular case.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Someone needs to have the balls to state that to log a find in this site you must sign the log.

 

So if the log is a pulpy mess, and my pen/pencil/sharpie can't make a mark on it, I can't log the online find?

[+Team Microdot]

Someone needs to have the balls to state that to log a find in this site you must sign the log.

 

So if the log is a pulpy mess, and my pen/pencil/sharpie can't make a mark on it, I can't log the online find?

 

Perhaps if a this rigid stance were taken we'd see abandoned pulpy-mess containing caches cleared off the map a heck of a lot quicker, instead of languishing for years just for the sake of one more smiley.

 

Every cloud...